Introduction

There are two surface finish obtained from machining process which come from two different
sources.
i)
ii)

primary surface roughness contributed by cutting tool geometry, feedrate and cutting
speed.
Natural surface roughness as a result of uncontrolled variation in machining process
and also machine tools.

For the purpose of quantitative of comparison of the work piece surface roughness , the
roughness when machined using tool nose radii r specified in the arithmetic average value, Ra is
given by the equation
Ra = 1.22 X 105 M f1.004 Vc-1.252 m
Where Ra is the average surface roughness , M = (r)-0.714 (BHN)0.323 is the constant to account for
the influence of tool nose radii and workpiece hardness, f is the feed rate , BHN is the Brinell
hardness number for the workpiece and Vc is the cutting velocity.
This equation shows that surface roughness is influenced by the cutting speed, feed rate and nose
radius of the tool. It also implies that changes in the cutting speed and feed rate in practical
process will influence surface roughness of machined workpiece. The figure belos shows the
geometry of a machined component and roughness effects.

For turning process, tha cutting velocity V ,is related to workpiece diameter D, and the spindle
revolution rate , N . This relation is given by equation :
V = DN

Objectives
1. To study and compare the experiment value of primary surface roughness with the
theoretical value.
2. To study the effects of cutting speed and feed rate on primary surface roughness.

Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.

Workpiece , cutting tool and the machine tool(lathe machine) is being prepared.
The cutting parameters for the experiment which are ( Vc,a,f) are being determined.
Nose radii of the tool being determined.
Turning process using speed and feedrate that have been set are beinf carried out and the
surface roughness is being measured and jot down.
5. Graph of the surface roughness as function cutting speed, Vc is being plot.
6. Graph of surface roughness as function of feedrate, f is plotted.
Results
Cutting Speed,Vc (m/min)
Spindle Rotation , N (rpm)
Tool nose radii ,r (mm)
Workpiece Brinell hardness value, BHN
Depth of cut,a (mm)
Feedrate,f (mm/rev)
Theoretical roughness value, Ra (m)

90.43
1200
0.8
82
0.5
0.05 0.10
0.17 0.358
9
0.49 0.504
8

Experimental roughness value, Ra (m)

0.16
0.574

0.20
0.719

0.25
0.899

0.30
1.08

0.701

0.922

1.138

4.633

Table 1 Effect of feedrate on the surface roughness.

Tool nose radii,r (mm)
Workpiece Brinell hardness
value,BHN
Feedrate,f (mm/put)
Depth of cut ,a (mm)
Spindle Rotation , N (rpm)
Cutting speed ,Vc (m/min)
Theoretical Roughness value,
Ra (m)
Experimental roughness
value,Ra (m)

0.8
82
0.2
0.5
180
13.57
2
7.723

260
19.60
4
4.874

370
27.89
7
3.133

540
40.71
5
1.952

800
60.31
9
1.193

1200
90.47
8
0.718

1700
128.177

0.67

1.191

0.439

0.438

0.656

0.549

0.777

0.464

Table 2 Effect of cutting speed on surface roughness

Feedrate vs Theoretical Ra
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
Feedrate(mm/rev)

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Theoretical Ra(m)

Graph 1 : Feedrate vs Theoretical Ra

1.2

Feedrate vs Exp Ra
5.000
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000

Feedrate(mm/rev)

2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Experimental Ra(m)

Graph 2 : Feedrate vs Experimental Ra

Cutting Speed vs Theoretical Ra

140
120
100
80
Cutting Speed(m/min)

60
40
20
0
0

Theoretical Ra (m)

Graph 3 : Cutting Speed vs Theoretical surface roughness.

Cutting Speed vs Exp Ra

140
120
100

Cutting Speed(m/min)

80
60
40
20
0
0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

Experimental Ra(m)

Graph 4 : Cutting Speed vs experimental surface roughness, Ra.

Sample Calculations
By using

Ra=1.22 x 105 x M f 1.004 V c1.252 ,

M =r 0.714 BHN 0.323 and V c =DN ,

0. 05

25
1000 1.252
x 1200 x 2 x
)
1000
60
R a=(1.22 x 105)(0.80.714 x 820.323)

( 1.004)( x

Ra=0.179 m

Discussion
Based on graph 1 and 2 obtained, generally the surface roughness for the machined work
piece tend to increase with the increase of the feed rate. This trend can be both observed from the
experimental roughness values and as well as the theoretical roughness values. This is because as
the feed rate increase, the cutting speed and depth of cut remain constant, the tool geometry will
be imprinted to the work piece surface thus resulted in increased surface roughness. Increase in

feed rate will increase the friction between work piece and tool interface, which eventually
increases the temperature in the cutting zone. Hence the shear strength of the material reduces
and the material behaves in a ductile fashion. This in turns will cause the sticky chip formed to
detach with utmost difficulty, thus increasing the surface roughness. Increase of feed rate also
cause unwanted vibration which will affect the surface roughness value.
As for graph 3 and 4, the surface roughness decreases as the cutting speed increases. The
statement is true for both the experimental and theoretical surface roughness values.
The decrease of surface roughness with the increase of cutting speed is due to the decreasing
built up edge (BUE) formation tendency. When BUE formation is reduced, the tool will be able
to cut the work piece much more thorough and smooth. Besides that, with the increase in cutting
speed, the rate of material being removed increase. The temperature of the work piece will not
increase as fast as low cutting speed, so it mean that the chip formed will be easily detach. With
lower temperature of the work piece, the plastic deformation on the surface where chip is being
remove will be more, thus give rise to lower surface roughness.
Based on both graph obtained, the experimental surface roughness values obtained have
a significant difference when compared to the theoretical surface roughness values computed.
The differences may arise from the lathe machine error. The most obvious error is backlash.
Backlash will cause inconsistent in feed rate and also cutting speed because the cutting tool may
not move 100% straight and 100% comply to feed rate set. This inconsistency will affect the
surface roughness value obtained. Next, the differences may be caused by the machining process
itself. During the machining of the work piece is carry out, no cutting fluid is used. This cause
the work piece as well as the cutting tool to heats up. After the turning process is finished, the
work piece will cool down and contract. The contraction will alter the surface roughness causing
it to become rougher as a result of microscopic contraction. Furthermore, the type of chip
produced during the machining process is continuous chip. Continuous chip can only formed
when the machine tool is projected below the machined surface, subjecting it to distortion. The
distortion occur will make the machined surface to have a high surface roughness value.
Hence, the difference between experimental values and theoretical value will be further increase.
The roughness values obtained from this experiment is not acceptable because the
difference to the theoretical values is simply too large. This is because a good surface finish
should have a roughness value close to the theoretical roughness value. Furthermore, good
surface finish will ensure the machined part to perform optimally, thus having a unacceptable
surface roughness value will lead to bad surface finish and ultimately causing detrimental effect
to the properties of the machined part in their service life.
Conclusion
Surface finish is definitely an important aspect in component machining. Hence, the
control of surface roughness value of a machined component should be further research and
improved. For this experiment, it is shown that the surface roughness value of the machined
work piece increase with increasing feed rate while decrease with increasing cutting speed. To
reduce the differences between theoretical values and the experimental values of surface

roughness, corrective steps such as preventing backlash error, uses of cutting fluid and control
the type of chip produced should be applied.
References
1.

D. Selvaraj and P. Chandramohan, "Influence of Cutting Speed, Feed Rate and Bulk
Texture on the Surface Finish of Nitrogen Alloyed Duplex Stainless Steels during Dry
Turning," Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 6, 2010.

2. http://www.geneq.com/en/material-testing/sector-market/metal-steel/surfaceroughness-tester.html
3. A.B. Abdullah, L.Y. Chia and Z. Samad, 2008. The Effect of Feed Rate and Cutting
Speed to Surface Roughness. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 1: 12-21